NATO Vs EUROCORPS

Discussion in 'Officers' started by Outstanding, Jul 12, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As NATO has now expanded to a unwieldy 26 Nations, that may soon become 30 (if Mr Bush has his way), has it lost its' credibility and could a smaller replacement more western euro centric alliance serve UK better?

    Accepting that EURORPS as it is today is not necessarily a good model, neverthgeless as a basis for discussion it has serious merit.

    Would UK be better off out of the NATO alliance and reather be in the centre of a new alliance?
     
  2. Not necessarily an answer, but a thought from too much reading and thinking recently...

    Given that Uncle Tom Cobbley and all from the Warsaw Pact and beyond now want to join, is NATO's "attack on one is an attack on all" principle actually out of date? Would it serve better as a unifying command force with common standards and procedures which allows better interoperability and cooperation without the pressure on all to play- the "Afghanistan Problem" if you like?

    It could be said that the current problem with NATO is that a number of countries were happy to help the US when attacked (9/11) but don't regard it as an open ended cheque or a carte blanche to the US to do what it wants (for US read any given country). A lot of people have said Afghanistan could finish NATO (eg Lords Owen and Carrington) if more countries don't play harder.

    Another thought- Gen Rupert Smith gives the EU as an example of an organisation which can do joined up Peace Enforcement/ Support Ops better than NATO as it has all the other bits one needs- International Development, Economic Pressure etc.

    Not sure that resolves to the EU, but it makes one think...
     
  3. Ah, the choices - join the Western European countries and accept that we will only ever be the ones ready to deploy troops OR stick with the only military superpower in the world despite all their faults?

    Seems like a no brainer to me.......
     
  4. Fait point Tom and of course we may remain in NATO anyway and retain our "special relationship". I had heard that US is about to reduce its NATO commitment by 50% as it needs troops for a new Op for a new country hat needs a good stiff stabilising!! No guessing I*R*N!
     
  5. Ah, that might be the favourite option, but whats the betting they are planning a mutiny against their CinC? Anyway, can we not ignore I*R*N and go further east, that way I may finish my round the world tour courtesy of HM Govt!
     
  6. Having served in both Nepal and HK, I think that there is a definite need to fill in the gaps, perhaps we could call it a commonwealth!?
     

  7. What would the aims of said alternate alliance be?